I'm going back into pure c for a while, 'cuz of this stupid class, and I was wondering...
Why do some people use:
Whereas other use:Code:struct foo { /* Members */ };
Is there any advantage to one over the other, or is it just a case of preference?Code:typedef struct { /* Members */ } foo;
To create an instance of the first you must use:
struct foo inst;
Whereas the second allows you to omit the struct since foo is a type alias for it:
foo inst;
In this case it really is a matter of personal preference.
-Prelude
My best code is written with the delete key.
And then there's :
typedef struct foo {
};
int main() {
foo bar;
return 0;
}
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
This is not a standard construct.Code:typedef struct foo { }; int main() { foo bar; return 0; }
-Prelude
My best code is written with the delete key.
Well it sure compiles fine
Anyway, I like it because of it's similarity to the C++ syntax for declaring classes. Very convenient.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
The reason why you don't have to use typedef when using struct is because that typedef used on its own does not imply a struct. Remember that you can use typedef for other purposes.
This is best explained here.
Originally posted by Sebastiani
Well it sure compiles fine
This compiles fine too, it doesn't mean I'd use it.Code:void main( ) { malloc( 1000000 ); }
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
